NationStates Jolt Archive

Cateogry: Advancement of Industry
AoE: Labor Deregulation

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET the plight of many debtors being saddled with huge debts that cannot be easily repaid,

STATING that such unpaid debts harms both the health of the global economy, thereby restricting economic growth, and the debtor himself, who would constantly be worried about the state of his financial future,

REALIZING that these debtors may lack hard currency but could still be able to pay back the debt by providing services, via 'debt bondage',

FULLY AWARE that 'Debt Bondage' is a conterversial subject where many reasonable people may disagree, but that a compromise may be reached on this issue,

DEFINING Debt Bondage as: "a contract by which a debtor will pay outstanding loans to a creditor by using direct labor instead of currency or goods",

1. DECLARES that all nations have the right to legalize, regulate or ban the signing of 'debt bondage' contracts in their countries,

2. REQUIRE all nations to respect and honor all 'debt bondage' contracts
signed in countries where 'debt bondage' is legal,

3. REMINDS all nations that debtors who enter into 'debt bondage' contracts shall not, at any time, be considered possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity, nor shall the debtor be treated as such,

3. MANDATES the following regulations on 'debt bondage' be enshrined in law
and enforced:
(a)The debtor and the creditor must have freely agreed to the contract, under binding independent arbitration.
(b)The debtor has the right to terminate this contract at any time, provided
he gives a specific and reasonable prior notice of terminating the contract,
not to exceed 2 weeks. The debtor shall then resume payment of the loan via conventional methods, with the work the debtor already done with the contract applied to the balance of the loan.
(c)The creditor is required to provide the debtor with all the necessities of
life, including, but not limited to, adequate food, water, and housing, during
the 'debt bondage' contract,
(d)The debtor's freedom to travel cannot be restricted by the 'debt bondage'
contract,
(e)The 'debt bondage' contract can not be extended, but it can be shortened by the freely given consent of both parties or by an order of a relevant court,

4. PROHIBITS creditors from engaging in violence, threats of violence,
enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue concerion, on debtors, during the time the 'debt bondage' contract is in effective.
(a)If the creditor does so at any time, the contract would be immediately
annuled, the debt associated with the contract cancelled, and the creditor be punished by the state to the fullest extent of the law.

5. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this
legislation.

Co-Written by Servant Corps

"As requested by the fine delegate from 'The Principality of Beaucalsradt', I went to work, hiring the best UN resolution drafters to come up with an idea that might be able to sastify all parties concerned on the issue. 'Servant Corps' has lots of experience in the creation of unconventional contracts, and we feel that such an issue is worthy of international intention. Here is the proposal, and we hope that the worthy UN delegates, including Beaucalsradt, can come up with suggestions."
---Mr. Peon, CEO of Servant Corps

Question, how the hell is this Free Trade?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

"I was about to ask the same thing Mr. Flibble."

"We presumed that this proposal would reduce barriers to commerce, such as the high debts that a debtor may have. But, on second thought, you are probraly right, Mr. Fibble. It was a typo on my part. Likely not Free Trade then. Changing category then to a hopefully more accurate: "Advancement of Industry: Labor Deregulation", altough I do hope it is legal since technically, this resolution regulates 'Debt Bondage'."
---Mr. Peon

This is indeed the spirit and body of the stance we held in the debate on the repeal of the abolition of slavery; a voluntary contract where labour is traded for the annulment of debts. We would like to congratulate Servant Corps with so adequately grasping the gist of our ideas.
It would allow debtors to re-enter the economic cycle as consumers - where high debts would have prevented this - and allows them to remain a part of the work force - where high debts could lead to homelessness, and subsequent loss of any working position. Skills and knowledge that otherwise would go to waste, can thus be adequately employed.

Respectfully,

Count de Saint-Germain à Clerques,
National Emissary to the NSUN,
for the Principality of Beaucalsradt

This a very interesting proposal. The State of New York may vote for this resolution if it comes to a vote.

We thank you for your voice of support.

Ambassador Seigfried frowned as he looked from a Catawaban history book to the proposed resolution. He pushed his large glasses back up his nose and looked. "Mister Peon, Count de Saint-Germain à Clerques, I find this as an intrigue bit of legislation. I do, however, have few observations and questions, gentlemen. In Catwaba's history when our very first Togovian settlers came to our shores, a goodly number came as indentured servants. However the Togovian system...in one of the few kind things about that nation...did include stipulations to support the better future of the former servant when the contract was concluded."

Seigfried ran his finger down lines of text until he found the line he wanted. "Ah, here, 'At the end of the allotted time, an indentured servant was to be given a new suit of clothes, tools, or money, and freed.' Gentlemen," the Catwaban looked up. "I would find it much easier to support this proposal if I knew that debtors would have written into their contracts an extra amount of labor needed to provide the debtor with enough capital to start a new. Otherwise, I fear this only sets debtors up for a horrible cycle of illusionary economic freedom and bondage."

The balding man glanced over at his notes. "I believe that it was customary for my ancestors to sell their earthly possessions and then enter into debt bondage to cover their passage to Catawaba. Will that be the same requirement for this proposal? If the debtor wishes to entering into willing bondage, should their entire estate and all assets be sold before hand? Also, I wish to know how will families be treated under this system? If the primary wage earner or earners are yoked to this contract, how will dependents be provided for? Finally, does the creditor, acknowledged I assume as the employer of the debtor, have the ability or right to end the contract with the debtor?"

Here's a thought, SS: Why don't you try sticking with one proposal idea, and seeing how far you can get with it -- instead of littering various forums with drafts you have no intention on completing?

The count rises and bows to Seigfried; "We thank the Seigfried, ambassador of Catawaba, for his remarks. They have been noted and are incorporated in a revisional draft of the proposal. It is, however, our purpose that the house and belongings can be retained by the debtor's family during the term of the contract.
As for the creditor, as the employer, being able to terminate the contract, there is a clause in the proposal stating that the contract can only be prematurely terminated if both parties come to an agreement. Breaking of the contract by either side could be discouraged by law, but the severity and kind of the penalty is left to the discretion of the members. I hope this covers your concerns?

I would furthermore point out that Servant Corps did draft the proposal by our desire; it is our intention to perfect it here, and, if we sense there to be sufficient support, to enter it officially."
After saluting the General Assembly once more, he sat down and motioned his aide to hand round the revised copies.

Cateogry: Advancement of Industry
AoE: Labor Deregulation

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET the plight of many debtors being saddled with huge debts that cannot be easily repaid,

STATING that such unpaid debts harms both the health of the global economy, thereby restricting economic growth, and the debtor himself, who would constantly be worried about the state of his financial future,

REALIZING that these debtors may lack hard currency but could still be able to pay back the debt by providing services, via 'debt bondage',

FULLY AWARE that 'Debt Bondage' is a conterversial subject where many reasonable people may disagree, but that a compromise may be reached on this issue,

DEFINING Debt Bondage as: "a contract by which a debtor will pay outstanding loans to a creditor by using direct labor instead of currency or goods",

1. DECLARES that all nations have the right to legalize, regulate or ban the signing of 'debt bondage' contracts in their countries,

2. REQUIRE all nations to respect and honor all 'debt bondage' contracts
signed in countries where 'debt bondage' is legal,

3. REMINDS all nations that debtors who enter into 'debt bondage' contracts shall not, at any time, be considered possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity, nor shall the debtor be treated as such,

3. MANDATES the following regulations on 'debt bondage' be enshrined in law
and enforced:
(a)The debtor and the creditor must have freely agreed to the contract, under binding independent arbitration.
(b)The debtor has the right to terminate this contract at any time, provided
he gives a specific and reasonable prior notice of terminating the contract,
not to exceed 2 weeks. The debtor shall then resume payment of the loan via conventional methods, with the work the debtor already done with the contract applied to the balance of the loan.
(c)The creditor is required to provide the debtor with all the necessities of
life, including, but not limited to, adequate food, water, and housing, during
the 'debt bondage' contract.
(d) The creditor is furthermore required to provide said necessities of life for the debtor's family, in so far as they are not provided by other family members, or other arrangements.
(e) The creditor and debtor are required to come to an arrangement, with the purpose of providing a budget enabling the debtor to re-enter a normal economic life.
(f)The debtor's freedom to travel cannot be restricted by the 'debt bondage'
contract,
(g)The 'debt bondage' contract can not be extended, but it can be shortened by the freely given consent of both parties or by an order of a relevant court,

4. PROHIBITS creditors from engaging in violence, threats of violence,
enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue concerion, on debtors, during the time the 'debt bondage' contract is in effect.
If the creditor does so at any time, the contract would be immediately
annulled, the debt associated with the contract cancelled, and the creditor be punished by the state to the fullest extent of the law.

5. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this
legislation.

Co-Written by Servant Corps

This used to be a practice in the old Kirisuban Empire which we came from in our past. Usually it was associated with Geisha who worked of their debt to the Mama san after they were able to earn for themselves.

It wasn't slavery as such but it was a means for a poor girl to learn a trade which would take a long time to master.

It has been long discontinued but the Federation would have to ban this practice on our homeworld. Point one allows a nation to allow or ban these agreements so its up to them if they happen or not.

Other than that it looks reasonable so far and we will continue to to consider this matter.

Ambassador Sakura Yamamoto, NSUN Ambassador from Neo Kirisubo

Here's a thought, SS: Why don't you try sticking with one proposal idea, and seeing how far you can get with it -- instead of littering various forums with drafts you have no intention on completing?

(OOC: You're right again. I have overextended myself. I do intend to keep to my first proposal, but just wanted to help someone else for now. But, now, I'm just going to stop doing that, seeing now how my quality of writing resolutions, however low, now heads over to nonexistant. Now, I am plainly focusing on my "one proposal idea", and see how well that goes...er...Again, sorry. Luckily, Beaucalsradt seems to be doing well...so...)

As for the creditor, as the employer, being able to terminate the contract, there is a clause in the proposal stating that the contract can only be prematurely terminated if both parties come to an agreement.

Well, to be fair, Clause 4b (claimed to be 3b by a stupid mistake in numbering on my part) allows for the debtor to terminate the contract, but that is due to Abolition of Forced Labor, which guarrantes the rights of all people to terminate employment if there is a reasonable 'prior notice'. If a debtor doesn't want to work anyway, he shouldn't be forced to after all.

But yeah, I do agree with your revisions. Good luck.
---Mr. Peon

You can call it by all the fancy worded titles you can dream up, but this is a form of slavery and the USoP stands against slavery no matter how frilly the title is.

Opposed.

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP UN Ambassador

In Agregorn, defaulting on a debt can be (in extreme cases) punished by the death penalty. That's not to say that failing to pay a trivial debt is an instant ticket to the arena. Repeat offenders, those that borrow and lie about their assets, or those that manipulate with embezzlement or fraud and as a result hurt the economy as a whole (so called white collar criminals) are, as believed by our society, to be cut of the same cloth as your average brigand, and should be treated as such!

We feel this law doesn't go far enough. However, were it to pass, we would enforce it, allowing those that flee debts from other nations to be tracked down and deported. Indeed, we would love other nations to know that our fiscal relationship would not be hampered by draconian measures, and we offer cooperation in favor of international free enterprise and democracy. That is, unless the criminal committed a heinous act within our borders against one of our own, but that goes without saying.

Though we are against slavery, it is certain the doomed debtor would prefer working off their debt to being killed by the state. And we strongly agree that a indentured servant contributes to the betterment of commerce (and society) more than they would contribute by being a corpse on national television. We would adopt a policy, as to be at the discretion and mercy of the victim, even a repeat offender (provided defaulting were their only crime) could be absolved of capital punishment.

As it stands, you have our support.

You can call it by all the fancy worded titles you can dream up, but this is a form of slavery and the USoP stands against slavery no matter how frilly the title is.

Opposed.

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP UN Ambassador


I think you may be mistaken in your assertion that "Debt Bondage" is slavery. Slavery has most often been defined as (and i am paraphrasing) "An instance where a human being is held in bondage against his will through threat of violence or other coercion and forced to work without proper compensation." This proposal speaks of a contract that is mutally agreed upon by both parties and a neutral arbitrator that either side can back out of at any time provided there is adequate notice. In addition, it clearly states that "debtors who enter into 'debt bondage' contracts shall not, at any time, be considered possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity, nor shall the debtor be treated as such" To poke a final hole in your arguement, the debtor would be compensated in the lessoning of his debt, which might be considered as being paid, then immediatly putting that pay towards paying off a debt.

All of this aside, the Kingdom of Ice Forge applauds this well written and thought out resoloution and has every intention of putting our vote in as FOR.

~Sadrin Darkfire, UN Rep. of Ice Forge

Again define it how you will, justify it, if you are not paying someone for services rendered it stinks of slavery.

I ask this, in the "absence of family or other arrangements" who is footing the bills for the housing of the family while the debtor is paying off his debt? Is the creditor doing that out of the kindness of his heart? Or are you building those costs into this indentured servitude? In that case how is the debtor ever really paying down his debt?

~NSY

While we still have no intention of sending scribes over to assist with the manifold deficiencies of this proposal, we will point out that clause 2 has no chance of ever becoming acceptable to us.

Again define it how you will, justify it, if you are not paying someone for services rendered it stinks of slavery.

I ask this, in the "absence of family or other arrangements" who is footing the bills for the housing of the family while the debtor is paying off his debt? Is the creditor doing that out of the kindness of his heart? Or are you building those costs into this indentured servitude? In that case how is the debtor ever really paying down his debt?

~NSY

And i state again, he is recieving payment, he has just agreed to put that payment towards paying his debt. As to your objection about the family, I believe clause 3d states: "The creditor is furthermore required to provide said necessities of life for the debtor's family, in so far as they are not provided by other family members, or other arrangements." In case you are ignoring part of that, it says that in the "Absence of family or other arrangements" the creditor will provide for the Debtors family. Also, in clause 3g, it states that "The 'debt bondage' contract can not be extended, but it can be shortened by the freely given consent of both parties or by an order of a relevant court."

This paticuler clause, being as it precludes the extension of the contract, and considering the fact that increasing the debt by doing what they are required to do in clause 3d would extend the contract, nullifies your newer concerns. As a final remark, i would again point out that part of slavery, an intregel part in fact, is that the slave is held against his will. The debtor in this proposal is not, as it states multiple times.

When you have a new arguement, i look foward to hearing it.

~Sadrin Darkfire, UN Rep. of Ice Forge

The Catawaba ambassador cocked his head to the side. "Ambassador Youlkin, as I understand the costs of the debtor's living expenses are written into the contract as well as the expenses of any dependents."

Siegfried glanced down at his notes for a moment. "The nearest analogy I can find is to compare this form of debt bondage with a debt settlement program. A person with means to hold steady employment and budget well can pursue an ordinary debt settlement program as a means to pay off debts over a long period through monthly payments. I see debt bondage as a possibility for those without steady employment or the inability to budget in a monthly debt settlement program to pay off a debt and re-earn a good economic repuation through a clear, secure program that exchanges work for payment towards the balance of debt and yet ensures the debtor a safe and healthy living."

He looked back up towards the USoP's delegate. "I will not deny that factoring in living expenses for a debtors and a dependent family without a supporting family could make for a lengthy contract. However if one must turn to a debt bondage contract, I doubt there are many choices left to one so desperate. Remember these contracts are made freely and willingly. These are not mandated by creditors or a state authority. Debt bondage will be an option, a last bastion for those willing to work to erase debt and better themselves."

"May I ask the ambassador from Gobbanium to explain his reasoning for the rejection of second Clause of the proposal?" Seigfried waited with pen on legal paper.

Well, to be fair, Clause 4b (claimed to be 3b by a stupid mistake in numbering on my part) allows for the debtor to terminate the contract, but that is due to Abolition of Forced Labor, which guarrantes the rights of all people to terminate employment if there is a reasonable 'prior notice'.

OOC: Presumably you are referring to the following clause from AFL?
7. Declares that all persons have the right to leave their jobs at any time unless required, by a stated condition of employment or a contract freely entered into, to give specific and reasonable prior notice of abandoning the position. Failure to provide such notice may release the employer from any contractual or similar obligations;

Is there anything there that would actually prevent nations defining the period of "specific and reasonable notice" required for leaving debt-bondage contracts, in particular (as they would be such a 'special case' compared to all other types of contracts anyway), as being equal to the remainder of the originally-agreed term of service?

Technically, there is not, but then again, the same argument could be made for any other contract. It does not lie, however, in what we, and we assume, with us any other nation would define as being reasonable.
We could insert, however, a clause about the notice being the same or at most double of what a normal contract would require, if that would set you at ease.

Is there anything there that would actually prevent nations defining the period of "specific and reasonable notice" required for leaving debt-bondage contracts [...] as being equal to the remainder of the originally-agreed term of service?Aside from the fact that that is demonstrably not "reasonable"?

Is there anything there that would actually prevent nations defining the period of "specific and reasonable notice" required for leaving debt-bondage contracts, in particular (as they would be such a 'special case' compared to all other types of contracts anyway), as being equal to the remainder of the originally-agreed term of service?

The bolded part:

(b)The debtor has the right to terminate this contract at any time, provided
he gives a specific and reasonable prior notice of terminating the contract,
not to exceed 2 weeks. The debtor shall then resume payment of the loan via conventional methods, with the work the debtor already done with the contract applied to the balance of the loan.

The "not to exceed 2 weeks" part is there partly to ensure that both the letter and the spirit of AFL is kept (AFL states that without such a 'prior notice', a person can terminate the contract at any time, so such a prior notice needs to be given). It also exist because we want to ensure that there would be no negative connations associated with 'debt bondage'.

However, as I point out, this is Beaucalsradt's resolution on how best to procede, and he could modify that '2 weeks' to some other reasonable time frame if he so chooses.
---Mr. Peon

When you have a new arguement, i look foward to hearing it.

~Sadrin Darkfire, UN Rep. of Ice Forge

I'm not done with the first argument yet. I didn't ignore that part I was specifically asking in the absences of friends and family.

As a creditor why would I possibly enter into an agreement with a debtor where I might be required by international law to support his family? In addition to that where the same international law suggests that I can't seek reimbursement for it.

Hire the person, pay the person, have the person pay you.. it really isn't that hard of a concept.

And since you wanted a new argument:

How can you in 1) "DECLARES that all nations have the right to legalize, regulate or ban the signing of 'debt bondage' contracts in their countries,"

Then in 4) MANDATE that we pass laws? What happened to the ability to ban "ban the signing of 'debt bondage' "

I'm not done with the first argument yet. I didn't ignore that part I was specifically asking in the absences of friends and family.

As a creditor why would I possibly enter into an agreement with a debtor where I might be required by international law to support his family? In addition to that where the same international law suggests that I can't seek reimbursement for it.

Hire the person, pay the person, have the person pay you.. it really isn't that hard of a concept.

And since you wanted a new argument:

How can you in 1) "DECLARES that all nations have the right to legalize, regulate or ban the signing of 'debt bondage' contracts in their countries,"

Then in 4) MANDATE that we pass laws? What happened to the ability to ban "ban the signing of 'debt bondage' "

You know, a friend of mine brought up the arguement concerning the creditor probobly not entering into a contract for the reason you mentioned after i posted before. Thinking about it, while i don't think it sinks the proposal, i can certainly see room for rewriting that to be more feasible.

The point i am trying to get across though is that one of these contract would be employment essentially. The person recieves payment in the form of debt relief. Therefore, i find your assertians that this is slavery to be untrue.

As to your newest arguement, i agree. It does need rewriting. I will try and think of how to rewrite so i may aid SS and Beaucalsradt in their editing (provided they wish it.)

~Sadrin Darkfire, UN Rep. of Ice Forge

The point i am trying to get across though is that one of these contract would be employment essentially. The person recieves payment in the form of debt relief. Therefore, i find your assertians that this is slavery to be untrue.

~Sadrin Darkfire, UN Rep. of Ice Forge

I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree on my perception of this, I still believe it is easier for a person to get a job, be paid a paycheck, and then have the freedom to accept the responsibility of paying his or her debt without being indentured. I know my citizens would feel the same.

I look forward to the possibility of rewrites.

~NSY

We could accept the concept behind this proposal, provided that the agreement remains voluntary for both creditor and debtor, and that either party can end the agreement at any time without penalty and resume repayment of the debt through conventional methods. We would also insist on the choice being left to individual nations as to whether or not they actually allowed this form of debt repayment. We'd also like to see some additional provisions beyond merely providing "all the necessities of life" to the debtor, namely provisions guaranteeing safe working conditions, reasonable work tasks and amount of hours within a working week. However, we think that there are some definite possibilities here.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree on my perception of this, I still believe it is easier for a person to get a job, be paid a paycheck, and then have the freedom to accept the responsibility of paying his or her debt without being indentured. I know my citizens would feel the same.

~NSY

Seigfried nodded along. "I agree with you, ambassador. I would much rather pay off my debts by my own means. I know that the majority of Catwabans would as well. As I stated before, I do not see debt bondage as the one and only means for debt relief. I would support the measure and its implementation in my country as a last resort for debtors. Not a mandated last resort, if the debtor wished to fail, allow them to fail. But those that want to recover, this could be the last knot in the rope that could allow them to pull themselves out of the chasm of bankruptcy.

Personally, I would hope they made prior attempts at paying off their debts by thier own means and persued a debt settlement program prior to debt bondage. But...I see nothing wrong with providing them the opportunity to arrest their fall, but at the tail end of contract the final portion of labor is meant to provide them with capital to start again."

"Any help and suggestion is welcome, and will be gratefully accepted.

Indeed, our main idea is to offer this as a last lifeline, while offering any and all conventional methods.
We certainly do not wish to force anyone in labour - except where forced labour is expected as part of a criminal sentence, but this is a different case altogether. We simply want to offer an option other than failing completely, as that will, more often than anyone would like, be the starting point of a vicious circle of debt.
I have been hesitant to enter any clause on the conditions of the labour, as I feel that one must proceed with caution on that part, as what will be acceptable conditions in one industry, will not necessary be acceptable in another. Could something along the lines of "The conditions of labour, whether it be manual or intellectual, will be equal to, or better than, the established standards for the industry involved." be acceptable, and sufficiently binding?
As for the "mandates.." part, I agree, there is an inaccuracy there: it should read that, in the case of accepting and legalising this, laws should be passed.
We will revise the proposal, keeping in mind all that has been mentioned so far. Naturally, we thank you all for your feedback and support so far."

The count sends his somewhat disgruntled aide off with his notes. After some time, mumbling about not having applied for a position as errand boy, he returns and starts handing out another revised copy.
Cateogry: Advancement of Industry
AoE: Labor Deregulation

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET the plight of many debtors being saddled with huge debts that cannot be easily repaid,

STATING that such unpaid debts harm both the health of the global economy, thereby restricting economic growth, and the debtor himself, who would constantly be worried about the state of his financial future,

REALIZING that these debtors may lack hard currency but could still be able to pay back the debt by providing services, via 'debt bondage',

FULLY AWARE that 'Debt Bondage' is a controversial subject where many reasonable people may disagree, but that a compromise may be reached on this issue,

DEFINING Debt Bondage as: "a contract by which a debtor will pay outstanding loans to a creditor by using direct labour instead of currency or goods",

1. DECLARES that all nations have the right to legalize, regulate or ban the signing of 'debt bondage' contracts in their countries,

2. REQUIRE all nations to respect and honour all 'debt bondage' contracts
signed in countries where 'debt bondage' is legal,

3. REMINDS all nations that debtors who enter into 'debt bondage' contracts shall not, at any time, be considered possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity, nor shall the debtor be treated as such,

3. MANDATES that if a nation chooses to legalise and / or regulate ‘debt bondage’ the following regulations on 'debt bondage' be enshrined in law
and enforced:
(a)The debtor and the creditor must have freely agreed to the contract, under binding independent arbitration.
(b)The debtor has the right to terminate this contract at any time, provided
he gives a specific and reasonable prior notice of terminating the contract,
not to exceed 2 weeks or what is considered reasonable in other contracts between employer and employee. The debtor shall then resume payment of the loan via conventional methods, with the labour delivered by the debtor under the contract applied to the balance of the loan.
(c)The creditor is required to provide the debtor with all the necessities of
life, including, but not limited to, adequate food, water, and housing, during
the 'debt bondage' contract.
(d) The creditor is furthermore required to provide said necessities of life for the debtor's family, in so far as they are not provided by other family members, or other arrangements.
(e) The creditor and debtor are required to come to an arrangement, with the purpose of providing a budget enabling the debtor to re-enter a normal economic life.
(f)The debtor's freedom to travel cannot be restricted by the 'debt bondage'
contract.
(g)The 'debt bondage' contract can not be extended, but it can be shortened by the freely given consent of both parties or by an order of a relevant court.
(h) The conditions of the labour, whether manual or intellectual, will equal or exceed the established norms and standards in the relevant industry or sector.

4. STRESSES that where ‘debt bondage’ is adopted as a legal option by the nation, this is not to be considered an alternative to existing efforts for social welfare. Therefore, the institution of debt bondage should not affect the former. Debt bondage will be only one option besides those effective at this time.

5. PROHIBITS creditors from engaging in violence, threats of violence,
enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue concerion, on debtors, during the time the 'debt bondage' contract is in effect.
If the creditor does so at any time, the contract would be immediately
annulled, the debt associated with the contract cancelled, and the creditor punished by the state to the fullest extent of the law.

6. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this
legislation.

Co-Written by Servant Corps

Ambassador Siegfried rocked in his chair slightly as he read over the revised proposal. He set it down and looked up. "Count de Saint-Germain à Clerques, a thought occurred to me while I was readying myself this morning. An issue has been raised by Ambassador Youlkin on the length of contracts in relation to the budgeting for living expenses of the debtor and any dependents. I believe that best efforts should be made to give a generous budget to cover living expenses in the initial contract, and any of the living expenses budgeted but not used can be added to the debtor's fresh start capital."

"However, in any situation are there are a myriad of unknown pitfalls that can arise. Say a debtor has already entered into a contract with a set budget of living expenses and a dependent, say…a child, becomes gravely ill and requires extensive medical treatment that would exceed any current budget present in the contract. Would one expect the creditor to pick up the expense at a loss if private medical insurance or state sponsored healthcare either won't cover it or does not exist?" The Catawaban ran a hand through his thinning black hair and glanced down at the proposal.

"Looking at sub clause 'g' of clause three, the contract may not be extended. Thus any living expenses exceeding those budgeted initially must be picked up at a loss by the creditor since the creditor cannot deny basic necessities when it comes to living expenses." Seigfried looked back up. "Could it not be possible for situations such as this when living expenses exceed the initial budget for the creditor and debtor meet with independent arbitrators and negotiate a fair contract extension to cover the budget shortfall?"

Thank you for the changes to the mandates portion, that allows us the freedom we were looking for.

To the point made by my esteemed colleague from Catawaba about extension, that is precisely why I think requiring them to cover the family expenses is a bad thing. I'm actually not advocating extending the time, I personally think that causes a slippery slope which could end up leading to a lifetime of working to pay off debt that never quiet goes away.

I just don't see how a business owner who already has taken a loss on a debtor will in turn risk a further loss because little Johnny needs braces... or a heart transplant.

To be honest the more I read this proposal the more restricting I see it is on the creditor, they have to provide far much more than the debitor to this, and the have far less rights. Let's remember that in the majority of cases it's the debitor who's actions have led to this course of events.

Also, and maybe this is the intention of 3E and if it is I'm sorry, but I'm wondering what rehabilitation this creates. In other words if I work and get no monetary compensation, how am I learning to budget and building discipline. Would it be better to allow them a small stipend for expenses?

~Nigel S Youlkin

"May I ask the ambassador from Gobbanium to explain his reasoning for the rejection of second Clause of the proposal?" Seigfried waited with pen on legal paper.

We consider the 'debt bondage' to be an odious concept. A resolution which permitted other nations to practice debt bondage within their borders, while highly regrettable, could be construed by some as having grounds within national sovereignty for being reasonable. Clause 2 permits other nations to practice debt bondage within our borders. That, ambassador, is not going to happen.

We consider the 'debt bondage' to be an odious concept. A resolution which permitted other nations to practice debt bondage within their borders, while highly regrettable, could be construed by some as having grounds within national sovereignty for being reasonable. Clause 2 permits other nations to practice debt bondage within our borders. That, ambassador, is not going to happen.


Seigfried frowned. "If there was a resolution that passed a UN vote that permitted nations to practice debt bondage...you would not need national soveriegnty to pronounce it reasonable. The UN resolution would mandate its legality and with a successful majority vote would be seen in a majority as reasonable."

The Catawaba leaned back in his chair and sighed. "While I understand and support your right to refuse to be party to this resolution since that right is written into the legislation...I worry on a point. I have no problem with you refusing business or entry on business purpose with firms or representatives party to or actually contracted in debt bondaged. But would you honor the contracts of a foriegn nation? Say a debtor fled the country without settling his debt or providing advance notice for ending the contract and reassuming the debt. That debtor would be in breach of contract and punishable by law. Would you honor that contract and extradite him back to face trial?"

The Catawaba put his head back against the top of his chair and looked at the high ceiling. "Frankly, my friends, the points raised by the esteemed delegates on both sides bear great merit. I support the spirit behind this proposal, but Ambassadors Youlkin and Mawr have raised good points that bear rapt attention."

He remained silent for a moment, hesitant. "Part of me wonders if this even requires a UN resolution. If Servant Corps and Beaucalsradt enacted debt bondage in areas of their control as fairly as outlined here...would they be able to? Catawaba would not have debt bondage as laid out here. I do not think that the Catawaban or Taung peoples would support it as is. But I believe in helping out other nations grow by fair means and providing help and growth to people themselves...it is not the belief of Catawabans that an ever-present welfare system serves in the citizen's best interest." He shrugged.

"I could see enacted a lesser system in Catawaba that might including debt assistance from the government. The debtors would participate in public works projects, community service, or military reserve service in their spare time and work vacations or holidays as payment for the assistance."

Say a debtor fled the country without settling his debt or providing advance notice for ending the contract and reassuming the debt. That debtor would be in breach of contract and punishable by law. Would you honor that contract and extradite him back to face trial?"

Extradite for what is essentially a civil matter?


He remained silent for a moment, hesitant. "Part of me wonders if this even requires a UN resolution. If Servant Corps and Beaucalsradt enacted debt bondage in areas of their control as fairly as outlined here...would they be able to?

Welcome to my world of thinking my friend. They are free do whatever they'd like in their country. If the international community doesn't see it as in violation of #232, (which as I'm the only person voicing the opinion that it can be I guess no one else does) they may. I don't think this is really something that needs to be addressed by an international law.


~NSY

Part of me wonders if this even requires a UN resolution. If Servant Corps and Beaucalsradt enacted debt bondage in areas of their control as fairly as outlined here...would they be able to?

We technically are exploring debt bondage, and, yes, debt bondage is legal according to the text of AoS and AoFL. In which case, nations could decide right now (however, at the same time, passing this resolution would guarrante that people have the right to decide rather than risking 'debt bondage' to be prohibited in the future).

However, and this is my honest opinon, this UN proposal provides more stringent regulations than what the current AoS and AoFL provides on debt bondage, closing loopholes that would allow creditors to abuse 'debt bondage', and turn it into 'de facto' slavery (For instance, AoFL mandates a 'reasonable' time for terminating a contract, while not stating what that time would be. This resolution would set it to two weeks, thereby closing a loophole that would force debtors to work for a very long time). It provides a floor on how powerful the 'debt bondage' may be, you may seek to create a lesser form of debt bondage if you so wish.

It also ensures that debt bondage contracts are respected even if a debtor crosses state lines without providing the proper notice, in order to flee the debt, thereby making debt bondage more effective in the long term. This is a major sticking point that could prevent creditors from doing such a thing.

At the same time, it allows for the UNFTC to artibrate on any disputes concering the resolution, allowing for some sort of oversight commitee to ensure that both the spirit and the letter of the law is enforced.

(EDIT: Lastly, by providing such an option enshrined in UN Law, debtors and creditors may be given the free choice to explore this option of debt bondage, and decide if it would be right for them or not, of course, assuming that national law legalizes it. It could be seen as promoting a highly regulated 'debt bondage', encouraging other nations to try it if they feel that it would be good for them.)
---Mr. Peon

It also ensures that debt bondage contracts are respected even if a debtor crosses state lines without providing the proper notice, in order to flee the debt, thereby making debt bondage more effective in the long term. This is a major sticking point that could prevent creditors from doing such a thing.



I believe you are incorrect. 3F states their freedom of travel can't be infringed upon. It says nothing about with proper notice, nor does it place any time or length restrictions on that travel. What is it that has been said many many times in this hallowed hall, "The law does what the law says." If there are stipulations placed on the travel, they MUST be entered into the law. Otherwise a creditor has no recourse. Right now as 3F stands a debtor can skip town and as long as they say they are "extending their vacation" nations have no recourse.

I believe you are incorrect.

And indeed I am. And I WON'T call for a revision of 3F, because that is there to stop Creditors from unjustly preventing the Debtors from leaving their nation, creating a sort of slavery. I just heard the comment from Catawaba about such a point, and forgetting 3F existed in order to prevent such a point, I made an argument that was in error.

Anyway, we'll just have to build in the costs of people leaving anyway. Those people are likely enough providing notice of leaving the contract anyway, so there is no need to worry about it. As long as the debts are repaid conventionally, of course.

The rest of my points still stand of course.
---Mr. Peon
(EDIT: Though there might be prehaps an idea in allowing for the Creditor to terminate such a 'debt bondage' contract if the Debtor does not grant such a notice, allowing for the Creditor to add some additional amount to the debt as a penatly.)

Again I believe this law gives entirely too many rights to the debtors and restricts the creditors entirely too much. It is not the creditors fault the debtor put himself in this position. Protection should be equal under this law not as one sided as it is here.

There should be restrictions on both sides, and there is no way we would support it unless there is.

Nigel S Youlkin

The Catawaba leaned back in his chair and sighed. "While I understand and support your right to refuse to be party to this resolution since that right is written into the legislation...I worry on a point. I have no problem with you refusing business or entry on business purpose with firms or representatives party to or actually contracted in debt bondaged. But would you honor the contracts of a foriegn nation? Say a debtor fled the country without settling his debt or providing advance notice for ending the contract and reassuming the debt. That debtor would be in breach of contract and punishable by law. Would you honor that contract and extradite him back to face trial?"

Under Gobbannaeg law as it presently stands, such a contract is generally considered to be unreasonable. Our objection to the proposal is precisely that it forces us to recognise the contract. We are frankly unwilling to countenance such a blot on our human rights record.

Under Gobbannaeg law as it presently stands, such a contract is generally considered to be unreasonable. Our objection to the proposal is precisely that it forces us to recognise the contract. We are frankly unwilling to countenance such a blot on our human rights record.So, in Gobbannium, people don't have the right to willingly give up their rights?

Interesting.

"I could see enacted a lesser system in Catawaba that might including debt assistance from the government. The debtors would participate in public works projects, community service, or military reserve service in their spare time and work vacations or holidays as payment for the assistance."

That is, in fact, possible, as there is no part that says they need to work exclusively for the repayment of the debt. In this case, there wouldn't be a need for the creditor to provide for the family either, as a provision by their conventional wages would be another arrangement.
Also, I believe that 3 h, which states that conditions of labour are to be at least equal to the standards for the labour, protects the rights of both sides. If this proposal seems onesided, this is largely due to our fear that this may be misread to mean a legalised form of slavery, which it isn't. As has been discussed before, the contract can be terminated, an the wages would be seen as equal to a reasonable wage for necessities of life, a small extra to be saved, and downpayment on the debt - although this must not always be this way, as the example proposed by our colleague, the ambassador of Catawaba, prooves.

As for the argument of Gobbannium; article 2 merely states that you should recognise the contract signed in other countries; not that you should allow those contracts regardless. Personally, we don't see how anyone could refuse to acknowledge a contract where both parties, fully knowing and of their own free will, agree upon something, provided it is not illegal; moreover, if this takes place in a country other than your own; what is there to object?
This proposal means exactly that there is protection of the rights and duties - although I will agree that those are more implicit for the debtor - on an international level, provided, of course, that this motion ever get passed.
Moreover, as The Most Glorious Hack stated, we too find it interesting that free man should not have the right to give up their rights, even for a predetermined period, as is the case here.

I would like to ask mr. Youlkin which restrictions he had in mind, so we might consider them, and come to an agreement.

On another note: I would like to take the opportunity to announce that I will be out of office for the next few days, as we have been called to the principal court for a most urgent matter.

OOC: This means I'm taking the weekend off, and won't be able to reply for some three days.

So, in Gobbannium, people don't have the right to willingly give up their rights?

Interesting.
Not quite. People may choose to act as they will, but a binding contractual arrangement requiring them to effectively enslave themselves is generally deemed unreasonable. We are aware that this has negative consequences for those who so choose in any case, but if one gives up one's rights, one cannot reasonably expect to have the rights one has given up upheld.

Perhaps the honoured representative would like to consider that we do not consider it so easy to give up one's responsibilities?

As for the argument of Gobbannium; article 2 merely states that you should recognise the contract signed in other countries; not that you should allow those contracts regardless. Personally, we don't see how anyone could refuse to acknowledge a contract where both parties, fully knowing and of their own free will, agree upon something, provided it is not illegal; moreover, if this takes place in a country other than your own; what is there to object?
That the contract is not a reasonable one, by our mores. We believe that to be quite a considerable objection. Accepting the validity of a contract signed elsewhere requires us to regard something that would under our law be struck down as illegal as being nonetheless legal when the signatories to the contract are in our land and notionally under our law. There are occasions when we accept that international law must take precedence over national law. This curate's egg is not such a case.

I would like to ask mr. Youlkin which restrictions he had in mind, so we might consider them, and come to an agreement.



It's hard to say specifics, as I'm not really completely on board with the concept of the proposal.

You have written a great law from the debitors perspective, indeed I would say that the law has many incentives for the debitor to enter in to it. However, the law has absolutely no incentive from the terms of the creditor to enter into it. Short of being paid what is rightfully owed them... eventually... with the possibility of accruing more out of pocket expenses.

I think there needs to be evidence of an attempt to pay by conventional means. I think the law should be directed specifically to those who have no other means to pay it back. Leave it up to the nations to decide what qualifies for debt bondage, but there should be a qualification.

There should be some ability to lengthen the time of service. I can think of several perfectly reasonable situations where this can be needed. A work related injury, unforseen costs of living changes... tons of reasons. If you want to leave the decision up to the local courts or the UN committee that's fair, but saying it can't be lengthened, no way, no how, is an enormous deal breaker.

The debitor's rights to travel should be limited. If not in distance than at least in time. If it were my law I'd say no longer than half the normal vacation time of a salaried employee with equal seniority, and restricted to domestic travel only. Otherwise I can skip town, and all I'd have to say is, I'm extending my vacation. Or I can just take a month or two off, on the companies expense account.

I think that you should look at possibly doing a work/pay split. In other words a percentage of the work the person does is applied to his debt and the rest is paid to him in currency. The debitor could then pay that currency back should that want to or bank it or spend it. That way the person is learning to budget, and can cover some unforeseen expenses themselves.

I think the creditor should have the same rights to terminate as the debitor. If he's not working up to par, or the arrangment changes too drastically, and it can be proved he should be fired, and made to pay his debt through conventional means. I know that a standard of work clause is in there but it's toothless as the creditor has no rights to fire them, or lengthen the contract, or anything.

In short I think you looked at the law from the perspective of protecting debitors from unscrupulous creditors, a noble aim, however were I an unscrupulous debitor I would:

Run my debt up with the ABC company till the point where I make it look like I couldn't pay it off. Enter into debt bondage where my living expenses are now magically paid, and my family is supported without my even needing to take responsibility for it. Do a lack-luster job because I can't be fired and my length of service is set in stone. Unless I decide to terminate early, which why would I while I can still live off the companies expenses for free. When I feel like it or when I get like 2 months from the end I can take a vacation... a long one with the money that I had, but didn't want to use before I went into debt bondage.

You want a law to help people pull them up by their bootstraps, this as written is giving some no incentive to even reach down.

~NSY

I honestly find this piece of legislation frightningly open to abuse. Someone who finds themselves with problematic debt could easily be in a situation to be manipulated into signing such a contract. While the delegation from Dancing Bananaland commends many of the clauses in this piece of legislation, we are disturbed by the lack of regulation on the content of the contract itself. One could easily envision a situation in which a desperate and ill educated person with debt would sign a contract they do not understand that binds them to a life of labour, where the debtor may pay his/her/it's new labourer very little for extremely difficult, and dangerous labour.

I will not support this proposal until issues regarding fair payment in the contract in regards to size of the debt, as well as further clarification of how the contract connot violate freedom of travel, and how the indebted may also terminate the contract. The delegation from Dancing Bananland also requests a clause with mandates the content of a contract specifically address and explain all these issues, working conditions, wage, etc.. in clear and comprehensive language, as well as having someone there who honestly explains the contract to the indebted if they are incapable of reading or understanding the contents of the contract.

To summarize, this piece of legislation is admirable but rife with potential for abuse, and we will not supported until it is tightened up and these issues addressed.

You do have a point there; it is possible to abuse it to the advantage of the debtor. I will consider your opinion, and I will try to deliver another amended text tomorrow or the day after, seeing as my aide has recently quit and gone back to sea.

The Count enters the room, followed by a young lieutenant, that seems to have taken the place of his former aide. The latter is carrying a rather heavy pile of paper; yet another revised version of the proposal to hand out.

"My fellow representatives, after some consideration of the points you have raised, we wish to present you with yet another draft, in which we hope to have solved a large part of your concerns and of which we hope it is rather more balanced concerning rights and duties.
It is true that there were too little rights on the part of the creditor, an issue we hope is solved in this draft. We have chosen to limit the reasonable period by discounting seniority, rather than taking half the period of anyone in a similar function with similar seniority, as it seems to be more fair to us."
Sitting down in his usual place, the commodore motions the lieutenant to hand the revised text round.
Cateogry: Advancement of Industry
AoE: Labor Deregulation

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET the plight of many debtors being saddled with huge debts that cannot be easily repaid,

STATING that such unpaid debts harm both the health of the global economy, thereby restricting economic growth, and the debtor himself, who would constantly be worried about the state of his financial future,

REALIZING that these debtors may lack hard currency but could still be able to pay back the debt by providing services, via 'debt bondage',

FULLY AWARE that 'Debt Bondage' is a controversial subject where many reasonable people may disagree, but that a compromise may be reached on this issue,

DEFINING Debt Bondage as: "a contract by which a debtor will pay outstanding loans to a creditor by using direct labour instead of currency or goods",

1. DECLARES that all nations have the right to legalize, regulate or ban the signing of 'debt bondage' contracts in their countries,

2. REQUIRE all nations to respect and honour all 'debt bondage' contracts
signed in countries where 'debt bondage' is legal,

3. REMINDS all nations that debtors who enter into 'debt bondage' contracts shall not, at any time, be considered possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity, nor shall the debtor be treated as such,

3. MANDATES that if a nation chooses to legalise and / or regulate ‘debt bondage’ the following regulations on 'debt bondage' be enshrined in law
and enforced:
I. Rights of the debtor - employee
(a)The debtor and the creditor must have freely agreed to the contract, under binding independent arbitration, whereby both parties have a right to legal counsel at the drawing up and signing of the contract.
(b)The debtor has the right to terminate this contract at any time, provided
he gives a specific and reasonable prior notice of terminating the contract,
not to exceed 2 weeks or what is considered reasonable in other contracts between employer and employee. The debtor shall then resume payment of the loan via conventional methods, with the labour delivered by the debtor under the contract applied to the balance of the loan.
(c)The creditor is required to provide the debtor with all the necessities of
life, including, but not limited to, adequate food, water, and housing, during
the 'debt bondage' contract.
(d) The creditor is furthermore required to provide said necessities of life for the debtor's family, in so far as they are not provided by other family members, or other arrangements.
(e) The creditor and debtor are required to come to an arrangement, with the purpose of providing a budget enabling the debtor to re-enter a normal economic life.
(f)The debtor's freedom to travel is guaranteed under the conditions that this leave of absence does not exceed any reasonable amount of time. The guideline for what is reasonable will be the customary period for a regular employee in the same function, discounting any seniority this employee may have gathered. Furthermore, we strongly advise the debtor to limit travel to domestic travel, so as to make the most of his budget.
(g)The 'debt bondage' contract can be shortened by the freely given consent of both parties or by an order of a relevant court.
(h) The conditions of the labour, whether manual or intellectual, will equal or exceed the established norms and standards in the relevant industry or sector.
II. Rights of the creditor - employer
(a) The creditor has the right to end a debt bondage if evidence can be provided to a designated court, that the labour of the debtor is not compliant to the standards set for any other employee, or that he is wilfully damaging the creditor's business.
(b) The creditor has the right to hire out the debtor's labour to another employer, should the industry of the creditor have no need for the debtor's skills. This will be under strict observation of a designated court.
(c) The creditor can apply to lengthen the contract, for reason of unforeseen circumstances, including, but not limited to, unforeseen rises in costs of living, disease and injury.
(d) The creditor can lengthen the contract, with the consent of the debtor, if a part of the labour will be treated as regular labour, being paid directly to the debtor in the nation's designated form of salary.
(e) The creditor can apply to a designated court to break the contract, if he has reason to believe that the debtor is taking advantage of the creditor.
(f) Under 3 I h, the conditions of the labour are set to equal or excel the standards of the industry; therefore, the creditor has a right to expect corresponding prestations.

4. STRESSES that where ‘debt bondage’ is adopted as a legal option by the nation, this is not to be considered an alternative to existing efforts for social welfare. Therefore, the institution of debt bondage should not affect the former. Debt bondage will be only one option besides those effective at this time.

5. STRESSES that debt bondage should be the last option; therefore, the nations adopting debt bondage as a legal option will require proof of attempts to repay the debt by conventional means.

6. PROHIBITS creditors from engaging in violence, threats of violence,
enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue concerion, on debtors, during the time the 'debt bondage' contract is in effect.
If the creditor does so at any time, the contract would be immediately
annulled, the debt associated with the contract cancelled, and the creditor punished by the state to the fullest extent of the law.

7. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this
legislation.

8. ENCOURAGES all parties entering in a debt bondage contract, to form a contract where the debtor will receive a salary in the form common to the nation, in addition to what will go to the repayment of the debt.
Co-Written by Servant Corps

Yet again, all suggestions are welcome.

OOC: I do believe this needs to be changed; I think I have too many characters at the moment, so any suggestion as to what can safely be chucked out, is welcome.

Mr. Peon woke up from a long slumber after hearing The Count enter the room. After reading the proposal, he stayed silent before making his statement.

"...

Oh dear.

The longer the entire thing becomes, the more people will begin to find and pick holes through the resolution and then vote it down. Not only that, but the idea isn't exactly favored by many people already, if they start reading more and more, they might take up an angry stance and cause it to be voted down. We also have to worry about gathering endorsements for the Proposal too, if they can't understand the proposal clearly, we won't have a chance."

Mr. Peon cleaned his glasses.

"We don't actually sympathzie wtih the position of Philimbesi. While there are lots of incentives for the debtor to enter the contract, the government themselves can create the very incentives for the creditor. Anything that is not stated in the UN resolution would belong to the states to decide. In fact, we are a bit concerned that this may just be a 'posion pill', adding in stuff that would doom the resolution. After all, the country of Philimbesi is against debt bondage on ethical principles, having not carried it out, they may not have known how it works in practice.

Still, if you desire, we will support some sort of reform. Just that, erm, not even we in SilentScope003 has this sort of regulations favoring the creditor. So, we're kind against that.

We would like to point out that the point of delegating the UNFTC to artibrate any dispute is to basically shorten the proposal. The gnomes on all the commitees on the UN would handle all the necessary details and ensure everything will be fine.

I'll try paring this down to a reasonable size by removing useless detail."

Cateogry: Advancement of Industry
AoE: Labor Deregulation

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET the plight of many debtors being saddled with huge debts that cannot be easily repaid,

STATING that such unpaid debts harm both the health of the global economy, thereby restricting economic growth, and the debtor himself, who would constantly be worried about the state of his financial future,

REALIZING that these debtors may lack hard currency but could still be able to pay back the debt by providing services, via 'debt bondage',

FULLY AWARE that 'Debt Bondage' is a controversial subject where many reasonable people may disagree, but that a compromise may be reached on this issue,

DEFINING Debt Bondage as: "a contract by which a debtor will pay outstanding loans to a creditor by using direct labour instead of currency or goods",

1. DECLARES that all nations have the right to legalize, regulate or ban the signing of 'debt bondage' contracts in their countries,

2. REQUIRE all nations to respect and honour all 'debt bondage' contracts
signed in countries where 'debt bondage' is legal,

3. REMINDS all nations that debtors who enter into 'debt bondage' contracts shall not, at any time, be considered possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity, nor shall the debtor be treated as such,

Kept as normal.

4. MANDATES that if a nation chooses to legalise and / or regulate ‘debt bondage’ the following regulations on 'debt bondage' be enshrined in law and enforced:

Having "I. Rights of the debtor - employee" there would mean that creditors would have 'rights' and that could easily make some people upset. I'm combining the two sections anyway for clarity.

(a)The debtor and the creditor must have freely agreed to the contract, under binding independent arbitration, whereby both parties have a right to legal counsel at the drawing up and signing of the contract.
(b)The debtor has the right to terminate this contract at any time, provided
he gives a specific and reasonable prior notice of terminating the contract,
not to exceed what is considered reasonable in other contracts between employer and employee. The debtor shall then resume payment of the loan via conventional methods, with the labour delivered by the debtor under the contract applied to the balance of the loan.

I have taken out the statement calling for "two weeks". Since you stated that the time of terminating this contract would be decided what is 'reasonable', the whole call for 'two weeks' is a bit useless. Any dispute over what is reasonable can be handled by the UNFTC.

(c)The creditor has the right to end a debt bondage if a designated court rules that the labour of the debtor is not compliant to the standards set for any other employee, that the debtor is wilfully damaging the creditor's business, or the debtor is taking advantage of the creditor. The debtor shall then resume payment of the loan via conventional methods, with the labour delivered by the debtor under the contract applied to the balance of the loan.

This is a combintion of IIa and IIe, placed right after the debtor's right to leave the Debt Bondage contract for easy read. I have added the boilerplate of (b) however, just to stress that the status of the debtor's payments.

(d)The creditor is required to provide the debtor with all the necessities of
life, including, but not limited to, adequate food, water, and housing, during
the 'debt bondage' contract.
(e) The creditor is furthermore required to provide said necessities of life for the debtor's family, in so far as they are not provided by other family members, or other arrangements.
(f) The creditor and debtor are required to come to an arrangement, with the purpose of providing a budget enabling the debtor to re-enter a normal economic life.
(g)The debtor's freedom to travel is guaranteed under the conditions that this leave of absence does not exceed any reasonable amount of time.

The proposed statement deleted is: "The guideline for what is reasonable will be the customary period for a regular employee in the same function, discounting any seniority this employee may have gathered. Furthermore, we strongly advise the debtor to limit travel to domestic travel, so as to make the most of his budget."

Any dispute on what is reasonable can easily be referred to the UNFTC.

(h)The 'debt bondage' contract can be shortened or extended by the freely given consent of both parties or by an order of a relevant court. If the 'debt bondage' contract is extended by the freely given consent of both parties, then a part of the labour will be treated as regular labour, being paid directly to the debtor in the nation's designated form of salary.

(i)The court may rule to extend the 'debt bondage' contract only if there are unforeseen circumstances, including, but not limited to, unforeseen rises in costs of living, disease and injury.


This combines I(g) with II(e) and II(d). If a relevant court, for instance, believes that there are "unforeseen rises in costs of living, disease and injury", they can extend the 'debt bondage' contract. The nation's laws can determine when this kicks in.

(j) The conditions of the labour, whether manual or intellectual, will equal or exceed the established norms and standards in the relevant industry or sector.

I'm keeping this, and getting rid of IIf, as it seems to me to be a duplicate.

(k)The creditor has the right to hire out the debtor's labour to another employer, should the industry of the creditor have no need for the debtor's skills. This will be under strict observation of a designated court.


This is IIb.

4. STRESSES that where ‘debt bondage’ is adopted as a legal option by the nation, this is not to be considered an alternative to existing efforts for social welfare.

I have taken out "Therefore, the institution of debt bondage should not affect the former. Debt bondage will be only one option besides those effective at this time."

5. STRESSES that debt bondage should be the last option; therefore, the nations adopting debt bondage as a legal option will require proof of attempts to repay the debt by conventional means.

6. PROHIBITS creditors from engaging in violence, threats of violence,
enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue concerion, on debtors, during the time the 'debt bondage' contract is in effect.
If the creditor does so at any time, the contract would be immediately
annulled, the debt associated with the contract cancelled, and the creditor punished by the state to the fullest extent of the law.

7. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this
legislation.

8. ENCOURAGES all parties entering in a debt bondage contract, to form a contract where the debtor will receive a salary in the form common to the nation, in addition to what will go to the repayment of the debt.
Co-Written by Servant Corps

I'm going to find a typist to check to see how long this is. And I do think we really need to trim it, because the more rights given to the creditors, the more people may mistake this for some sort of slavery, which we do not wish to imply.

EDIT: Er. You know what? The entire resolution is now 5323 characters, and the limit for new proposals is "around" 3500 characters. The previous draft you had was at 3846 characters, so I think it would be far better to return back to that draft rather than bloating the proposal up.

I'm thinking the best way to handle this is to keep what we had orignally, but then create a brand new commitee, which will help provide new laws to protect both creditors and debtors (but we need to stress enough that all rights protected under Aboliton of Slavery and AoFL will still be protected). Then, we're going to have to trim useless stuff in that resolution and then 'fluffy' it up so that we can get more votes.

OOC: This clause 6. PROHIBITS creditors from engaging in violence, threats of violence,
enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue concerion, on debtors, during the time the 'debt bondage' contract is in effect.
If the creditor does so at any time, the contract would be immediately
annulled, the debt associated with the contract cancelled, and the creditor punished by the state to the fullest extent of the law. can go. Its first half duplicates existing legislation that would apply in such cases anyway, and its second half arguably contravenes the Fair Sentencing Act...

I think I disagree with St. Edmund Clause 6 is rather necessary, in that (1) there is always the possiblity that AoFL may be abolished, in which case, we need to have the resolution stand on its own merits rather than rely on previous legalisation and (2) we have to assure those who read the proposal but not attend the actual UN debates that those in debt bondage will be protected.

The other part does not contrvanes the "Fair Sentencing Act" in that the nation can decide the punishment for the Creditor, but, as to the financial matters, the debt is surely cancelled and voided.

Thank you for your efforts. I really appreciate it; I'll think about your suggestion of the committee, which may well be the right way to go.
In the mean time, I have tried to trim it even more down, eliminating things, rewording others, eliminating clause eight entirely, as that was already covered in clause four. this gives the following, which is very close to the count of the last draft.

Cateogry: Advancement of Industry
AoE: Labor Deregulation

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET the plight of many debtors saddled with huge debts that cannot be easily repaid,

STATING that such unpaid debts harm both the health of global economy, restricting economic growth, and the debtor himself, constantly worried about the state of his finances,

REALIZING that these debtors may lack currency but may be able repay the debt by providing services, via debt bondage,

FULLY AWARE that Debt Bondage is a controversial subject where many people disagree, but that a compromise may be reached on this issue,

DEFINING Debt Bondage as a contract by which a debtor will pay outstanding loans to a creditor by using direct labour instead of currency or goods,

1. DECLARES that all nations have the right to legalize, regulate or ban debt bondage in their countries,

2. REQUIRE all nations to respect all debt bondage contracts signed where debt bondage is legal,

3. REMINDS all nations that debtors who enter into debt bondage will not, at any time, be considered possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity, nor treated as such,

4. MANDATES that if a nation legalises and regulates debt bondage the following regulations on debt bondage be enshrined in law and enforced:

a)The debtor and the creditor must have freely agreed to the contract, under binding independent arbitration, with right to legal counsel at any time.
b)The debtor has the right to terminate the contract at any time, provided he gives a specific and reasonable prior notice of terminating the contract not to exceed what is considered reasonable
c)The creditor has the right to end a debt bondage if the court rules the labour of the debtor not compliant to the standards set for any other employee, the debtor wilfully damaging the creditor's business, or taking advantage of the creditor.
d) For both clauses b) and c), the debtor shall resume payment of the loan via conventional means, with the labour delivered under the contract applied to the balance of the loan.
e)The creditor is required to provide the debtor with all the necessities of life, including, but not limited to, adequate food, water, and housing, during the term of the contract.
f) The creditor is to provide the former for the debtor's family, in so far as this is not covered by other arrangements.
g) The creditor and debtor are required to come to an arrangement, with the purpose of providing a budget for the debtor to re-enter a normal economic life.
h)The debtor's freedom to travel is guaranteed under the condition that this leave of absence does not exceed any reasonable term.
i)The 'debt bondage' contract can be shortened or extended by the freely given consent of both parties or by an order of the court. If extended by freely given consent, a part of the labour will be treated as regular labour, paid directly to the debtor in the nation's designated form of salary.
j)The court may rule to extend the debt bondage contract only if there are unforeseen circumstances, including, but not limited to, unforeseen rises in costs of living, disease and injury.
k) The conditions of the labour, whether manual or intellectual, equal or exceed the established norms and standards in the relevant sector.
l)The creditor has the right to hire out the debtor's labour, if the former has no use for the debtor's skills. This will be under strict observation of the court.

4. STRESSES that where debt bondage is legalised, this is not to be considered an alternative to extant efforts in social welfare.

5. STRESSES that debt bondage should be a last option: proof of attempts to repay by conventional means is required.

6. PROHIBITS creditors from engaging in violence, threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue concerion, during the time the debt bondage contract is in effect. Prompt annullation of the contract, cancellation of the debt associated to it, and punishment to the fullest extent of the law will ensue breaking this article.

7. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any disputes arising concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

Co-Written by Servant Corps

Alright. Currently, the new proposal is 4,203. Still a bit high from the 'approxmiate' limit of 3,500. Let see if we can trim this a bit more...At the same time, we can discuss about the possiblity of certain rights...
***
We might be able to combine b, c, and d (612 characters) altogether.

b)The debtor has the right to terminate the contract at any time, provided he gives a specific and reasonable prior notice of terminating the contract not to exceed what is considered reasonable
c)The creditor has the right to end a debt bondage if the court rules the labour of the debtor not compliant to the standards set for any other employee, the debtor wilfully damaging the creditor's business, or taking advantage of the creditor.
d) For both clauses b) and c), the debtor shall resume payment of the loan via conventional means, with the labour delivered under the contract applied to the balance of the loan.

Into this single clause (315 characters):

The debtor and the creditor has the right to terminate the contract at any time, provided he gives a specific and reasonable prior notice of terminating the contract. The debtor shall resume payment of the loan via conventional means, with the labour delivered under the contract applied to the balance of the loan.

It will save on having to head to the court to have the creditor prove the debtor is not fufilling its end of the baragin, after all. Treating it like a job would be the best way of going around this.

I am also wondering about this clause:
i)The 'debt bondage' contract can be shortened or extended by the freely given consent of both parties or by an order of the court. If extended by freely given consent, a part of the labour will be treated as regular labour, paid directly to the debtor in the nation's designated form of salary.
j)The court may rule to extend the debt bondage contract only if there are unforeseen circumstances, including, but not limited to, unforeseen rises in costs of living, disease and injury.

Subclause J for instance is ripe for abuse. 'Unforeseen costs of living' will likely enough just leave a person buried in debt for a long period of time, if the court aligned itself with the 'creditor'. Basically, erm, someone is going to object with Subclause J and they will start screaming about it.

Here's a possible revision.

The 'debt bondage' contract can be shortened or extended by the freely given consent of both parties or by an order of the court. If extended for any reason, a part of the labour will be treated as regular labour, paid directly to the debtor in the nation's designated form of salary.

The 'order of the court' is so that it complies wtih local laws, which may include extending the contract due to "unforeseen rises in costs of living, disease and injury", as well as possibly other ways as well (a person may not be following Subclasue K, and the creditor doesn't want to fire him, he just wants him to work a bit longer to make up...). But, if extended for whatever reason, he will be entitled to get paid.

I am afraid about clause 6 being a bit unclear, so hopefully, I'll clear it up.

6. PROHIBITS creditors from engaging in violence, threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue concerion, during the time the debt bondage contract is in effect. If the creditor violates this article, then prompt annullation of the contract, cancellation of the debt associated to it, and punishment to the fullest extent of the law will follow.

Thank you for this, it seems more reasonable as well.

as for clause 6, would this be acceptable? 6. The creditor's engaging in violence , threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue concerion, during the time the debt bondage contract is in effect, will effect the prompt annullation of the contract, cancellation of the debt associated to it, and punishment to the fullest extent of the law.

Maybe even "during the term of the contract" tout court.

6. The creditor's engaging in violence , threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue concerion, during the time the debt bondage contract is in effect, will effect the prompt annullation of the contract, cancellation of the debt associated to it, and punishment to the fullest extent of the law.

Erm. It just seems like it's too hard to understand if you only read it the first time. We want to stres that we don't WANT the creditor to engage in "violence, threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue concerion", to those who only read the resolution. Clarity is needed.

6. PROHIBITS creditors from engaging in violence, threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue concerion, during the time the debt bondage contract is in effect. If the creditor violates this article, then prompt annullation of the contract, cancellation of the debt associated to it, and punishment to the fullest extent of the law will follow.

Maybe even "during the term of the contract" tout court.

Huh? Um. Can you explain what you mean?

I see your problem.

I just meant eliminating the words debt bondage, to shorten it.

Yeah, sure. That's a great idea.

Apologising for his absence, the Beaucalsradt emissary once again hands out a revised copy of the proposal: Cateogry: Advancement of Industry
AoE: Labor Deregulation

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET the plight of many debtors saddled with huge debts that cannot be easily repaid,

STATING that such debts harm both the health of global economy, restricting economic growth, and the debtor himself, constantly worried about the state of his finances,

REALIZING that these debtors may lack currency but may be able repay the debt by providing services, via debt bondage,

FULLY AWARE that Debt Bondage is a controversial subject where many people disagree, but that a compromise may be reached,

DEFINING Debt Bondage as a contract by which a debtor will pay outstanding loans to a creditor by using direct labour instead of currency or goods,

1. DECLARES that all nations have the right to legalize, regulate or ban debt bondage,

2. REQUIRE all nations to respect all debt bondage contracts signed where debt bondage is legal,

3. REMINDS all nations that debtors who enter into debt bondage will not, at any time, be considered possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity, nor treated as such,

4. MANDATES that if a nation legalises and regulates debt bondage the following regulations on debt bondage be enshrined in law and enforced:

a)The debtor and the creditor must freely agree to the contract, under binding independent arbitration, with right to legal counsel at any time.
b) The debtor and the creditor has the right to terminate the contract at any time, provided he gives specific and reasonable prior notice. The debtor shall resume payment of the loan by conventional ways, with the labour delivered under the contract applied to the balance of the loan.
c)The creditor is required to provide the debtor and his family with all the necessities of life, including, but not limited to, adequate food, water, and housing, during the term of the contract, in so far as this is not covered by other arrangements.
d) The creditor and debtor are required to come to an arrangement, with the purpose of providing a budget for the debtor to re-enter a normal economic life.
e)The debtor's freedom to travel is guaranteed under the condition that his leave of absence does not exceed any reasonable term.
f) The contract can be shortened or extended by the freely given consent of both parties or by an order of the court. If extended, part of the labour will be treated as regular labour, paid directly to the debtor in the nation's designated form of salary.
g) The conditions of the labour, whether manual or intellectual, equal or exceed the established norms and standards in the relevant sector.
h)The creditor has the right to hire out the debtor's labour, if the former has no use for the debtor's skills. This will be under strict observation of the court.

4. STRESSES that where debt bondage is legalised, this is not to be considered an alternative to extant efforts in social welfare.

5. STRESSES that debt bondage should be a last option: proof of attempts to repay by conventional means is required.

6. PROHIBITS creditors from engaging in violence, threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue concerion, during the term of the contract. Violation will effect the prompt annulation of the contract, cancellation of the debt associated to it, and punishment to the fullest extent of the law.

7. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any disputes arising concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

Co-Written by Servant Corps


OOC: this is 3530 characters, I took SSE's adjustments, and trimmed some turns of phrase. I hope this is a proposal acceptable to all parties.

Still worried about Clause 6, but you know. I think this is good as written (barely fitting the word count length just fine). One think we need to ask you: Can Servant Corps get premission to submit this resolution...eventually (considering the stars are aligned and the time is right)? This is in case you don't have time for a TG campagin, you know.

Anyway, we just have to brace ourselves for...the debate.
---Mr. Peon, CEO of Servant Corps

Yes, indeed, the debate is going to be hard. Of course you do; I wish I had any idea whether I will have the time; I hate varying schedules...

Oh yes, for clause 6:6. PROHIBITS creditors from engaging in violence, threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, or other forms of undue concerion, during the term of the contract. Violation will effect the prompt annulation of the contract, cancellation of the debt associated to it, and punishment to the fullest extent of the law.

The change from and to or, closes a small loophole.

Due to recent concerns, it seems that this draft needs to be resurrected as to properly regulate the legal practice of debt bondage.

Here is the current draft, and we hope to submit this for approvals rather soon. We ask all delegates for advice:

Cateogry: Advancement of Industry
AoE: Labor Deregulation

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET the plight of many debtors saddled with huge debts that cannot be easily repaid,

STATING that such debts harm both the health of global economy, restricting economic growth, and the debtor himself, constantly worried about the state of his finances,

REALIZING that these debtors may lack currency but may be able repay the debt by providing services, via debt bondage,

FULLY AWARE that Debt Bondage is a controversial subject where many people disagree, but that a compromise may be reached,

DEFINING Debt Bondage as a contract by which a debtor will pay outstanding loans to a creditor by using direct labour instead of currency or goods,

1. DECLARES that all nations have the right to legalize, regulate or ban debt bondage,

2. REQUIRE all nations to respect all debt bondage contracts signed where debt bondage is legal,

3. REMINDS all nations that debtors who enter into debt bondage will not, at any time, be considered possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity, nor treated as such,

4. MANDATES that if a nation legalises and regulates debt bondage the following regulations on debt bondage be enshrined in law and enforced:

a)The debtor and the creditor must freely agree to the contract, under binding independent arbitration, with right to legal counsel at any time.
b) The debtor and the creditor has the right to terminate the contract at any time, provided he gives specific and reasonable prior notice. The debtor shall resume payment of the loan by conventional ways, with the labour delivered under the contract applied to the balance of the loan.
c)The creditor is required to provide the debtor and his family with all the necessities of life, including, but not limited to, adequate food, water, and housing, during the term of the contract, in so far as this is not covered by other arrangements.
d) The creditor and debtor are required to come to an arrangement, with the purpose of providing a budget for the debtor to re-enter a normal economic life.
e)The debtor's freedom to travel is guaranteed under the condition that his leave of absence does not exceed any reasonable term.
f) The contract can be shortened or extended by the freely given consent of both parties or by an order of the court. If extended, part of the labour will be treated as regular labour, paid directly to the debtor in the nation's designated form of salary.
g) The conditions of the labour, whether manual or intellectual, equal or exceed the established norms and standards in the relevant sector.
h)The creditor has the right to hire out the debtor's labour, if the former has no use for the debtor's skills. This will be under strict observation of the court.

4. STRESSES that where debt bondage is legalised, this is not to be considered an alternative to extant efforts in social welfare.

5. STRESSES that debt bondage should be a last option: proof of attempts to repay by conventional means is required.

6. PROHIBITS creditors from engaging in violence, threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, or other forms of undue concerion, during the term of the contract. Violation will effect the prompt annulation of the contract, cancellation of the debt associated to it, and punishment to the fullest extent of the law.

7. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any disputes arising concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

Co-Written by Servant Corps

well now im confused who's submitting and who's co-author.

These issues may or may not be already talked about but they trouble us and we would like a clear reply to how the heck they will be handled.


(c)The creditor is required to provide the debtor with all the necessities of life, including, but not limited to, adequate food, water, and housing, during the 'debt bondage' contract. An individual came to be in debt because he bought these items and could not pay for them thus now you expect those who he owes money to to give them free what he was not paid for while he repays what he owed?

(d) The creditor is furthermore required to provide said necessities of life for the debtor's family, in so far as they are not provided by other family members, or other arrangements. Here a person who has a family and fails to support them is a criminal and he goes to prison for his actions therefore this resolution would not apply since he is in prison and not free nor has he any rights of normal citizenship while in prison. His family comes under the care of his next of kin until he is free again and if they fail to take them or their is no next in line in the family then they become wards of the people.
(e) The creditor and debtor are required to come to an arrangement, with the purpose of providing a budget enabling the debtor to re-enter a normal economic life. So now we become his parents and guardians and have to teach him what he should have learned already in school and during national training. This failure to apply ones self to provide for a family and self is here considered criminal and one goes to prison for such actions.. There they either learn to work or don't survive long.
(f)The debtor's freedom to travel cannot be restricted by the 'debt bondage'We have no such issue as debtors here as noted in earlier comments if a person is not willing to work to provide for self and family then he becomes a criminal and their status is such,,,, a criminal not a debtor...

We have no such issue as debtors here as noted in earlier comments if a person is not willing to work to provide for self and family then he becomes a criminal and their status is such,,,, a criminal not a debtor...Um... so nobody buys a house unless they have cash in Cavirra?

I'm confused.

Um... so nobody buys a house unless they have cash in Cavirra?

I'm confused. That is not what I have said as a person can buy on credit here but should they for their own faults come to where they can't pay those debts then they become criminals. As here they all get the same education and training to become citizens thus once this is done are able to find work and earn income to pay for things. Family is involved in teaching our young to work for things if they want it not have them given to them and thus families are held accountable if a child or member of the family falls outside the normal here. As a citizen they know thier duty to family and nation and what happens if they fail to keep meet their duties to either.

We feel that giving them these items without some payment for them would not help clear the debt but only burden the person they owe more. Making them victums again of criminals who will not comply with natural order of things here. If a person has a job and leaves it and becomes unable to pay bills then they become criminals. Those they leave a work or can't work come under the care of the family and those without family come under care of the nation which is the prime family... so they still under family care.

DECLARES that all nations have the right to legalize, regulate or ban debt bondage,

needs a comma after regulate

REQUIRE all nations to respect all deb

should be requireS

The creditor is required to provide the debtor and his family

should be his/her...... not sure how nations with a third+ sex would work......

debtor's skills. This will be under strict observation of the court.

should be courtS otherwise you would need to designate a specific court, and have 17000 nations report to that court........

note that i was looking over the proposal, not just grammatically nitpicking, but those are the only problems my nation has with the proposal.

Thank you for your observations.
The choice has fallen on his, however, with the observation that masculine is still the unmarked gender in English. We realise, however, that there are some opposing this linguistic reality, but feel that at the moment, there is still a clear preference for masculine, as corpus research shows. Of course, you are right in pointing out that for those reading to the letter this may be a loophole. However, seeing how the NS world works, and the multitude of possibilities, it is unclear to us as well how to close that.
You are right of course, that there should be some consistency in the grammatical form used.

As for the problem of who is actually the co-author, I would say that we have an equal share in the authorship, and that mostly external circumstances will dictate who is filing the proposal.

Thank you for your observations.
The choice has fallen on his,
We believe it would be improper to just say 'debtor and debtor's family' or simple 'debtor and family of debtor' and drop the 'he she his her' needs since gender of the debtor is not known or important here in general.

Then you may have nations where males assume all debts due to actions of their spouse(s) or children so then debtors will always be males and here if a male fails to keep his wives and children in line then he becomes a criminal and they assisted in his crimes so they also criminals and end up in prison for their crimes. Allow other wise and one builds to solid welfare state something not good for the majority who work hard to keep what they want and may have and don't want to have to hand it over to some criminal who rejects social order.....

I don't really think anyone can close any loophole in any resolution, unless you resort to Reasonable Nation Theory. It is highly unreasonable for a nation to assume that 'he' only means 'male'. I also point to the UNFTC who can help clear up any confusion as to what a resolution means, which will hopefully plug in most of the loopholes and stop nations from violating the law.

That being said, we might as well modify the proposal to take out the 'he', as long as it doesn't become too cumbersome to read.

Also, Beaucalsradt, Gobbannium may be right in the finding of the words "in so far as this is not covered by other arrangements" to be abused. It is rather likely Gobbannium will attempt to find other arguments in order to try and undermine this proposal, but I think it might as well be a good idea to take those words right out of the proposal, and make the creditor pay for all expenses. The alternative, keeping a loophole that is likely can't be closed by the UNFTC, is far worse and will only cause people to object.

As they say, "the devils are in the details".
---Mr. Peon

We would remind Mr Peon that contrary to his instincts, we are a person rather than some replaceable gestalt. We have a name of our own: Ambassador Prince Rhodri ap Dafydd ap Rhys ap Idris ap Ieuan. Referring to us as if we and our nation were interchangeable is insulting and demeaning to both, and we formally request that he desist this practice and apologise.

Meanwhile, in another discussion, your co-author raised this point:
I should like to point out once more that in one of the very first clauses, it is clearly stated that any nation retains the right to either allow, regulate, or ban debt bondage. In response to your objection as stated during the convention, I can only say, that the convention would affect nations, to have the right to ban, regulate and allow, not private persons or corporations; therefore, we do not see how, if you choose, as is clear, to ban debt bondage, others could practice it within your borders.
We quite concur with the Count that clause 1 gives us that right. Regretably, as we pointed out at the very beginning of this discussion, clause 2 makes that guarantee into naught but pretty words. All that prospective signatories need to is travel to a nation that has legalised debt bondage to enact their contract, and our ban is worth exactly nothing. We forsee more than a few nations being willing to ease such occurances; indeed, the representatives of Servant Corps have seemed quite keen to see their home nation become the Gretna Green of debt-slavery.

It is highly unreasonable for a nation to assume that 'he' only means 'male'.Well... not entirely. Regardless, it's bad form, especially when one can easily avoid it without resorting to nonsense like "hir".

We hope that the following amendments make this more acceptable. Prince Rhodri, I hope this allows your nation the freedom you have expressed was found lacking in the drafts so far. The way this draft reads, one should need to legally emigrate to sign a contract, if you wish to ban the practice, which would happen even if we imposed a total ban.
We believe that clause one now fully covers both the people as the boundaries, and that clause two, as all member nations will have to comply with the resolution, will not infringe on that right, as well as giving you the right to deny the legality of contracts signed in non NSUN nations.

Cateogry: Advancement of Industry
AoE: Labor Deregulation

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET the plight of many debtors saddled with huge debts that cannot be easily repaid,

STATING that such debts harm both the health of global economy, restricting economic growth, and the debtor himself, constantly worried about the state of his finances,

REALIZING that these debtors may lack currency but may be able repay the debt by providing services, via debt bondage,

FULLY AWARE that Debt Bondage is a controversial subject where many people disagree, but that a compromise may be reached,

DEFINING Debt Bondage as a contract by which a debtor will pay outstanding loans to a creditor by using direct labour instead of currency or goods,

1. DECLARES that all nations have the right to legalize, regulate or ban debt bondage for their citizens, as well as within their borders.

2. REQUIRES all nations to respect the legislation concerning this issue, of any and all other NSUN members.

3. REMINDS all nations that debtors who enter into debt bondage will not, at any time, be considered possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity, nor treated as such,

4. MANDATES that if a nation legalises and regulates debt bondage the following regulations on debt bondage be enshrined in law and enforced:

a)The debtor and the creditor must freely agree to the contract, under binding independent arbitration, with right to legal and financial counsel at any time.
b) The debtor and the creditor has the right to terminate the contract at any time, provided he gives specific and reasonable prior notice. The debtor shall resume payment of the loan by conventional ways, with the labour delivered under the contract applied to the balance of the loan.
c)The creditor is required to provide the debtor and his family with all the necessities of life, including, but not limited to, adequate food, water, and housing, during the term of the contract, in so far as this is not covered by other arrangements.
d) The creditor and debtor are required to come to an arrangement, with the purpose of providing a budget for the debtor to re-enter a normal economic life.
e)The debtor's freedom to travel is guaranteed under the condition that the leave of absence does not exceed any reasonable term.
f) The contract can be shortened or extended by the freely given consent of both parties or by an order of the court. If extended, part of the labour will be treated as regular labour, paid directly to the debtor in the nation's designated form of salary.
g) The conditions of the labour, whether manual or intellectual, equal or exceed the established norms and standards in the relevant sector.
h)The creditor has the right to hire out the debtor's labour, if the former has no use for the debtor's skills. This will be under strict observation of the court.

4. STRESSES that where debt bondage is legalised, this is not to be considered an alternative to extant efforts in social welfare.

5. STRESSES that debt bondage should be a last option: proof of attempts to repay by conventional means is required.

6. PROHIBITS creditors from engaging in violence, threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, or other forms of undue concerion, during the term of the contract. Violation will effect the prompt annulation of the contract, cancellation of the debt associated to it, and punishment to the fullest extent of the law.

7. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any disputes arising concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

Co-Written by Servant Corps

Minor issue: in clause 6, do you mean "coercion" instead of "concerion"?

We're also not fans of clause 2, honestly. If a nation truly has issues with debt bondage, they shouldn't be required to enforce it.

Those things aside, however, we still think this has potential and are inclined to support it.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Well, actually, I have a question concerning that clause. Observing the workings of the NSUN, following a resolution, and all parts thereof, is necessarily absolutely compulsory for the members. Then, there is clause one, giving each and any nation the right to adjust legislation in this matter as they see fit, within the borders of this text, for their territory and citizens. Would it not follow then that this legislation must be respected by the other members? If so, clause two is effectively redundant.
As for the issue with the word concerion, we will first apply to our board of linguistics for advice.

OOC; I'll look it up first; I tried the Internet, but there is no clear definition of the term there, although it does turn up in trustworthy sources - peer reviewed magazines. Clarification will follow, I hope.

Would it not follow then that this legislation must be respected by the other members? If so, clause two is effectively redundant.

Yeah Clause 2 is rather redundant. I should have recommended taking out Clause #2 earlier, due to the fact that it does seem to be rather weak. Taking out useless words would help this proposal immensely.

[EDIT: I don't think concerion is a word. "Coercion" is the word we are looking for, and it was specified in the AoFL.]

---Mr. Peon

Ok, then this should be the current text of the proposal:

Cateogry: Advancement of Industry
AoE: Labor Deregulation

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET the plight of many debtors saddled with huge debts that cannot be easily repaid,

STATING that such debts harm both the health of global economy, restricting economic growth, and the debtor himself, constantly worried about the state of his finances,

REALIZING that these debtors may lack currency but may be able repay the debt by providing services, via debt bondage,

FULLY AWARE that Debt Bondage is a controversial subject where many people disagree, but that a compromise may be reached,

DEFINING Debt Bondage as a contract by which a debtor will pay outstanding loans to a creditor by using direct labour instead of currency or goods,

1. DECLARES that all nations have the right to legalize, regulate or ban debt bondage for their citizens, as well as within their borders.

2. REMINDS all nations that debtors who enter into debt bondage will not, at any time, be considered possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity, nor treated as such,

3. MANDATES that if a nation legalises and regulates debt bondage the following regulations on debt bondage be enshrined in law and enforced:

a)The debtor and the creditor must freely agree to the contract, under binding independent arbitration, with right to legal and financial counsel at any time.
b) The debtor and the creditor has the right to terminate the contract at any time, provided he gives specific and reasonable prior notice. The debtor shall resume payment of the loan by conventional ways, with the labour delivered under the contract applied to the balance of the loan.
c)The creditor is required to provide the debtor and his family with all the necessities of life, including, but not limited to, adequate food, water, and housing, during the term of the contract, in so far as this is not covered by other arrangements.
d) The creditor and debtor are required to come to an arrangement, with the purpose of providing a budget for the debtor to re-enter a normal economic life.
e)The debtor's freedom to travel is guaranteed under the condition that the leave of absence does not exceed any reasonable term.
f) The contract can be shortened or extended by the freely given consent of both parties or by an order of the court. If extended, part of the labour will be treated as regular labour, paid directly to the debtor in the nation's designated form of salary.
g) The conditions of the labour, whether manual or intellectual, equal or exceed the established norms and standards in the relevant sector.
h)The creditor has the right to hire out the debtor's labour, if the former has no use for the debtor's skills. This will be under strict observation of the court.

4. STRESSES that where debt bondage is legalised, this is not to be considered an alternative to extant efforts in social welfare.

5. STRESSES that debt bondage should be a last option: proof of attempts to repay by conventional means is required.

6. PROHIBITS creditors from engaging in violence, threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, or other forms of undue coercion, during the term of the contract. Violation will effect the prompt annulation of the contract, cancellation of the debt associated to it, and punishment to the fullest extent of the law.

7. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any disputes arising concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

Co-Written by Servant Corps

The count on this one is 3,497 characters.

OOC: Three spare characters? Nice.

IC: "I can find no reason to not support the proposal, so you have the support of the Great Commonwealth."

A small question: is clause 1 not now self-contradictory? It legislates over both the citizens of a nation and within the borders of said nation, without giving one explicit priority over the other. The case of a citizen of a nation which legalizes debt bondage in the borders of a nation which criminalizes it is therefore indeterminate, as is the case of a citizen of a nation which criminalizes debt bondage in the borders of a nation which legalizes it.

Indeed, this is a problem. We have considered "for their citizens within their borders", but I'm not entirely sure what the implications would be. At the time I thought it would allow a nation to practise debt bondage in another, that does not allow it, a situation which we try to avoid; however, reading it now, it does seem to imply that it is only for the citizens of a nation within the borders, meaning, that they could simply go to another country; another situation we would like to avoid.

I must admit I'm somewhat puzzled over what may be an appropriate wording.

The simple solution would be referring the case to the UNFTC; although I believe that legislation should be clear enough to make an arbiter virtually unnecessary.

The present option does seem to be contradictory; if you don't want it on your territory, you should forbid all that have signed a legal contract in another country to enter your country.

On the other hand, if it should read simply "All nations have the right to legalise, regulate or ban debt bondage." it would be less specific, still allowing countries to solve cases like these amongst themselves. But whether it is a good idea?

Aoi Kiru Usagi Minzoku does occasionally experience this problem in the courts. In our constitution, we have laws wherein under circumstances where the debtor is unable to pay back a loan, after an appeal is made in court, the time stipulated may be increased with a corresponding increase in interest. However the suggestion here is valid, and the controversial areas of this issue have been suitably modified. I see no reason why it cannot be passed. Aoi Kiru Usagi Minzoku will certainly add it to its own constitution, and hopes other nations will follow suit.

Some delegates have raised the problems of its legality when crossing national borders. Therefore, I suggest a clause be added wherein the following becomes null and void should clashes with international law arise.

and make the creditor pay for all expenses. We have but one question in regards to this comment: "Would you reward a rapist with a second chance to rape his victum?" If not then why do you repeat the assault on the creditor and rape them again here?

We have but one question in regards to this comment: "Would you reward a rapist with a second chance to rape his victum?" If not then why do you repeat the assault on the creditor and rape them again here?
The situation is entirely different, as it is not the second chance for abuse, but a contract with the consent of both parties, in an attempt to repair the abuse. Hence, it does not seem right to equal the creditor to a rape victim.

Precisely. The question is, can we have this legislation passed?

Precisely. The question is, can we have this legislation passed?

I did some interviews, and I think the voters I talked to are netrual.

I think the main problem we have with this draft is with Clause 1. Hopefully, we can fix it. It does however make it rather important that the NSUN legaliste on this issue.

It will be rather hard to get this resolution to quorom and then to see it pass. But I believe that it will eventually prevail.
***
Stating that "all nations have the right to legalise, regulate or ban debt bondage" might appear to be the least-bad, but it will lead to conflicts between national jurisidictions. These conflicts can be handled amongst nations, but in the end, if it becomes too heated, the UNFTC will step in. Either way, nations will get upset, and either way, they will either state that the nation's juridisction applies to either citizens, or territory, not both. Bad blood 'will' be exchanged.

Having it that each nation is allowed to legalize, regulate, or ban debt bondage within its borders does sound a bit more appealing, in my honest opinon, because it provides a way to ensure debt bondage does not happen in your nation...just prohibit any person who signed a debt bondage in another country from coming into your nation. (At the same time, it may mean a citizen might become a debt bondage, but a nation could always state that all citizens forfeit their citizenship if they sign a debt bondage contract.)

Another reason why it is more appealing is because then it is laid out clear and the issue does not need to be referred to in the UNFTC. Each nation knows the extent of its power in deciding this issue for themselves.
--Mr. Peon

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.
I believe this is the major problem with Clause 1. The NSUN rules are rather firm on this. Gentlemen, there are two methods we can do to modify this:
A. Enforce it, which is rather controversial, owing to the issue of infringing on national sovereignty.
B. Use the Urge clause, which just might have problems reaching quorum due to the above.

Ambassador Seigfried cleared his throat. "After much thought on the matter, the Government of Catawaba has come to a firm decision on the entire matter of Debt Bondage. It has been our pleasure to assist Servant Corps and Beaucalsradt in drafting this proposal in what little ways we could. However, Catawaba will abstain on this issue. We will neither support this Convention nor a Ban upon Debt Bondage. While we don't wish to set up a Debt Bondage system within Catawaba, we can find no firm reasoning to pronounce any resolution against the matter for other nations. Should either proposal become a resolution, we will of course comply with the will of our fellows member countries, but at this time we will not levy any support when we have no firm feeling on the matter."

I believe this is the major problem with Clause 1. The NSUN rules are rather firm on this. Gentlemen, there are two methods we can do to modify this:
A. Enforce it, which is rather controversial, owing to the issue of infringing on national sovereignty.
B. Use the Urge clause, which just might have problems reaching quorum due to the above.

That what the 'original' Clause 2 was supposed to do. You were to be compelled to respect the practicing of debt bondage in other countries. We are allowed to have 'blocker' resolutions as long as we do some 'urges' and 'recommends'. In fact, the two 'stresses', in Clause 4 and Clause 5, as well as the 'reminds' in the new Clause 2, may act as the mild things that would help make this proposal legal.

I am going to wait for the Count to see how to deal with the earlier problem. But I'm going to try and sneak in an 'urge' somewhere...
---Mr. Peon

EDIT:

Two ideas:
4. DECLARES that debt bondage is not to be considered an alternative to extant efforts in social welfare.

or

2. STRONGLY URGES all nations to respect the legislation concerning this issue, of any and all other NSUN members.

Personally, I like the sound of "... within their borders" but there is the problem as you stated. The other two ideas are fine with me.
I thought "within their borders and for their citizens" would solve the former problem, but as the representative from Gobbannium pointed out, that leaves a grey area. I quite dislike, as I said before, putting in place legislation that will be disputed, as that cannot be the purpose of legislation.

The suggestion of a new clause 2 seems the most acceptable solution.Also, without reference to the contract, it solves the issue why it was initially disputed.

Also, we would like to thank ambassador Seigfried for his efforts, and wish him to know that we fully respect the Catawaban decision.

New (and hopefully final) draft.

Cateogry: Advancement of Industry
AoE: Labor Deregulation

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET the plight of many debtors saddled with huge debts that cannot be easily repaid,

STATING that such debts harm both the health of global economy, restricting economic growth, and the debtor himself, constantly worried about the state of his finances,

REALIZING that these debtors may lack currency but may be able repay the debt by providing services, via debt bondage,

FULLY AWARE that Debt Bondage is a controversial subject where many people disagree, but that a compromise may be reached,

DEFINING Debt Bondage as a contract by which a debtor will pay outstanding loans to a creditor by using direct labour instead of currency or goods,

1. DECLARES that all nations have the right to legalize, regulate or ban debt bondage within their borders.

2. STRONGLY URGES all nations to respect the legislation concerning this issue, of any and all other NSUN members.

3. REMINDS all nations that debtors who enter into debt bondage will not, at any time, be considered possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity, nor treated as such,

4. MANDATES that if a nation legalises and regulates debt bondage the following regulations on debt bondage be enshrined in law and enforced:
a)The debtor and the creditor must freely agree to the contract, under binding independent arbitration, with right to legal and financial counsel at any time.
b) The debtor and the creditor has the right to terminate the contract at any time, provided he gives specific and reasonable prior notice. The debtor shall resume payment of the loan by conventional ways, with the labour delivered under the contract applied to the balance of the loan.
c)The creditor is required to provide the debtor and his family with all the necessities of life, including, but not limited to, adequate food, water, and housing, during the term of the contract, in so far as this is not covered by other arrangements.
d) The creditor and debtor are required to come to an arrangement, with the purpose of providing a budget for the debtor to re-enter a normal economic life.
e)The debtor's freedom to travel is guaranteed under the condition that the leave of absence does not exceed any reasonable term.
f) The contract can be shortened or extended by the freely given consent of both parties or by an order of the court. If extended, part of the labour will be treated as regular labour, paid directly to the debtor in the nation's designated form of salary.
g) The conditions of the labour, whether manual or intellectual, equal or exceed the established norms and standards in the relevant sector.
h)The creditor has the right to hire out the debtor's labour, if the former has no use for the debtor's skills. This will be under strict observation of the court.

5. STRESSES that where debt bondage is legalised, this is not to be considered an alternative to extant efforts in social welfare.

6. STRESSES that debt bondage should be a last option: proof of attempts to repay by conventional means is required.

7. PROHIBITS creditors from engaging in violence, threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, or other forms of undue coercion, during the term of the contract. Violation will effect the prompt annulation of the contract, cancellation of the debt associated to it, and punishment to the fullest extent of the law.

8. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any disputes arising concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

Co-Written by Servant Corps

Going to be doing a character count soon.

Fine in all respects but one. The payment rate for the labor should be minimum wage applicable to that particular country unless specially requested by the creditor.

That may very well be a noble and humanistic idea, but you do have to take into account what the debtor is already getting; full house and board, payment of debts and extra. I believe that for quite some nations this is already above the minimum wage.

I find this whole idea utterly abhorrent. This idea is nothing more than a form of slavery and after recent UN resolutions constitutes a step backwards for the UN.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

id run it through microsoft word for a grammar and spell check though, i see a few commas missing and verbs wrong.

We would like to warmly invite Mr Flibble to cast his eyes over our initial thoughts (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550507) on legislating the opinion he has just expressed. We would be only too glad to be advised of any deficiencies in our thinking.

(OOC: Erm. It seems I forgot to copy the delegate list before it expired, so it's going to have to wait until Monday/Tuesday for a TG campagin.

Actually, it might take me a little longer, due to lots of RL issues. I think it is rather unlikely I ever can submit it due to these RL problems. But, I do thank those who helped write this proposal.)